13. CHAP. XI. Whether it be lawful in the Communion to use one only kind.
CHAP. XI. Whether it be lawful in the Communion to use one only kind.
O ur adversaries endeavor by many Arguments to defend the most shameful maiming of this sacrament which they have brought in. In deed they grant that the Church while it was yet ignorant, used both the kinds, but afterward when it understood that the one part might suffice, especially the laity (to prevent the error of some, which might think that the body of Christ in the sacrament is given severed from the blood, and the blood severed from the body,) it decreed that only the Priests should use both kinds in the Mass; and that to the people, only the one kind should be distributed. Further they say, that it was authorized by the Council of Constance. Moreover they contrive the Commandments of God into two principal points: Some of them they will have to remain perpetually firm and unshaken, so as they may never be violated, among which sort they place the morals. The others doubtless, they appoint to be those which concern outward things: of which kind be the Ceremonies and sacraments.
And these they will not have to be so necessary, but that according to the place and time they may be changed. They maintain also that it was no
wrong to the Christian people, that one kind is taken from them. For the body of Christ (say they) is not given in the form of bread without blood: even as in the cup also the blood is not had without the body. They likewise allege, that the liberty of Christ his Church, is far greater, than was the liberty of the Synagogue: and that therefore it is lawful for the Church to change more things in our Ceremonies, than was permitted to the fathers of the old Law. For we are not under the law as servants, but as free men under grace. And they endeavor to show that sometimes the Church in many rites altered even in very matter. First of all they say, that it dipped not them which be baptized, according as the Greek word βαπτίζειν signifieth, but it only sprinkled, or after a strange manner washed. Neither is it to be doubted, but that those which so be washed must be holden as baptized, seeing that Cyprian being demanded whether they which were baptized in yielding up the ghost, should be judged as baptized (for they lay in the bed and being oppressed with the force of sickness might neither be dipped, nor yet washed, but only sprinkled, wherefore they should seem not to be baptized) that man of God answereth, that they had perfect baptism.
2. They vaunt also that in baptism the words have sometime been altered, seeing in the Acts of the Apostles the 8th chapter we read: that baptism was given in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: when as notwithstanding in the Gospel, the Lord commanded his disciples that they should baptize in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Yea and they allege that at this day the order prescribed by Christ is perverted. For he commanded that they should first teach and then baptize. But we deal otherwise, we first baptize infants, afterward when they are grown, we teach them. And again they say that that which Christ did is not observed in our communion. For we receive the sacraments fasting, whereas he
distributed them when he and his Apostles had supped. We also choose unto ourselves the morning, whereas he made his supper in the evening. Neither do we wash feet, whereas he first washed his disciple's feet, and commanded that one should wash an others feet. In like manner they allege the commandment of the Apostle, to wit, That a man should not pray or prophesy with his head covered, nor yet a woman with her head bare.
Which at this day is not so carefully and precisely observed. Also a decree of the first Council, which was held in time of the Apostles, namely, that the Gentiles should abstain from blood and strangled, is abolished. And these fellows cavil that the case of the Apostles, with whom the Lord in his last supper communicated, is not like the case of the Christian people. For they were ordained by Christ to be Priests: wherefore they say that justly and upon good cause there was ordained another disposition of the communion for the lay people. They fain likewise, that Christ otherwhile distributed the Eucharist under one kind to his disciples, especially when he went with them unto the town of Emmaus, where they are said to have known him in breaking of bread. Whereupon they argue that we offend in seeking to establish a doctrine and precept only by one action of Christ. Further they cry out that the consent of the Catholic Church maketh for them, and they allege causes whereby they are led to minister only one kind unto the laity.
The first they say is, least the wine should be spilled, which might easily happen, if it should be ministered to the whole multitude. The other cause is, for that it were requisite that as well wine as bread should be reserved for the sick, and ministered unto them whensoever they should ask it, which might not conveniently be done, because wine is so soon and easily corrupted. Besides this they object that there be many which drink no wine, who being able to receive only one part, if both parts were of necessity, they
would think that neither they communicate rightly, neither that they have the whole Sacrament. Lastly, they allege the honor of the ministry: for they have judged it meet that more should be attributed unto their Massing
Priests than unto the general multitude. Neither would they that the communion of the laity should be of equal dignity or estimation with the Mass. I have well-near recited their Arguments which be of most force.
3. Now on the contrary part I will show our reasons, whereby shall be showed how grievously they offend in this mangling of the Lord's Supper.
First they depart from the institution of Christ, and preach another Gospel than he himself and his Apostles have preached: And this doth exceedingly jar from godliness. This in divinity ought to be a chief principle whereby all things must be resolved: The Lord said: It is the word of the Lord that endureth forever. From the which, if we should be called back to men's fancies, since they often change, we shall have nothing firm in religion, but we shall be driven from certainties to uncertainties; and the authority of men shall be equal to the authority of God. Unto the Galatians it is written:
If we or an Angel from heaven, shall preach otherwise, let him be accursed.
But and if that Paul will neither have Angels nor Apostles to be heard, which affirm anything contrary to the decrees of the Gospel, we will nothing regard the boldness and impudency of corrupt men, which teach otherwise of the Sacraments than Christ taught. Paul in the 11th of the 1st to the Corinthians, testifieth, that he received of the Lord that which he delivered: And he out of doubt rehearsed both kinds. So as we may think, that they which otherwise define, have not received of the Lord, but rather of his adversary: wherefor they must not be heard. And unto the Galatians
Paul hath, Unto a Testament although it be man's, the same being confirmed, nothing is added or ordained besides: how much less should
men be rash in adding anything to the Testament of Christ? Men which be frail and weak, do only bequeath earthly things by their Testaments. But Christ which is God and omnipotent, hath bequeathed to his Church sacraments which belong unto eternal life. Wherefore none ought at any time to have been so hardy as to invert his Testament. In Deuteronomy the fourth Chapter, the Lord commandeth Israel That he should hear his Law, and specially he mentioneth Chukim, which word signifieth Ceremonies, and he commandeth that they should neither add nor take anything from them: which commandment of God, is of great force to beat down our pride. For so proud are we, that we would always have our own devises, not only to be in estimation, but also to be preferred above the words of the Lord: And in the Book of Numbers the 15th chapter it is written, That the children of Israel should have ribands of blue silk in the borders of their garments, that in seeing of them, they might call to remembrance the commandments of God, that they might not do that which was pleasing to their own heart, or liking to their own eyes. And unto the Romans, Paul grievously reproved it, that the Gentiles were infatuated with their own vain disputations, and that they would not worship God simply as they knew him by his creatures; whereupon he saith that they were given over unto wicked lusts. And there is no doubt but that this maiming of the Supper of the Lord, belongeth unto this kind of vice. And moreover to this institution of the Lord concerning the administration of the Sacrament, the universal Church, both in the most ancient and best times hath always consented.
4. Also the fathers have greatly feared to leave the Lord's order in this Sacrament. There is extant a Canon of Gelasius, which is in the Title De
Consecratione, distinct. 2, in the chapter Comperimus, wherein certain men are blamed, because they having received the Lord's body, abstained from
the cup of the blood. Which he saith is superstitious. And he commandeth them that either they should receive the whole Sacraments, or else be driven from the whole. Also he saith it is sacrilege that they should in such sort be divided. This do they endeavor to avoid, and to restrain it to massing Priests while they consecrate. For them (say they) it is necessary to receive both kinds. Howbeit this they have not out of the words of the Bishop. Nay rather there is mention there of the participants, and of them which are to be driven from the sacraments: the which agree fitly unto them to whom they be distributed. Moreover it is written in the decree, that the injury is done not unto the oblation or sacrifice, but unto the Sacrament. For he saith that a division of one and the selfsame mystery, cannot be done without great sacrilege. Therefore seeing they distribute the communion unto the laity under one kind, and make division of the Sacrament, they cannot deny but that they commit sacrilege. Chrysostom in the 18th Homily upon the 2nd
Epistle to the Corinthians saith, that there be some things wherein a Priest differeth not from a lay man. I say in receiving of the dreadful mysteries, it is not with us as it was in the old law, where some parts of the sacrifices were given unto the Priests, others went unto them that offered: but unto all us is set forth one and the selfsame body of Christ, and the selfsame cup.
5. Cyprian in his second Book, and 3rd Epistle earnestly affirmeth that in this Sacrament of the Eucharist, we must by no means vary from the institution of Christ. And there when he entreateth at large of this matter, he setteth down these special pointes, namely: That Christ in this matter must be heard: further that we ought not to regard what others have done before us, but what Christ did before all. Moreover, he that doth not as he did, doth in vain worship God with the commandments and doctrines of men. And such precepts of the Sacrament he maketh not light, but saith they be great.
And the same Martyr in an Epistle to Pompeius against Stephen Bishop of the City of Rome, writeth: Where any doubt is, we must always resort to the Tradition of the Lord, to the Gospel and the Apostles. The adversaries say, that Cyprian speaketh not of this which we now entreat of. He disputed against the heretics called Aquarij, who used not wine unto the cup of the Lord but water. This (say they) he reproved, and not the taking away of a part of the Eucharist from the laity. I grant it, but I say, that these men sin more grievously against the institution of the Lord than did the Aquarij.
Because they although they put water in the stead of wine, yet did they not utterly remove the other part of the sacrament. They used the selfsame words, which we speak in delivering of the Cup: only they did change the Element. But these men take away from the people both the whole Cup, and the words thereof. Further I grant the disputation of Cyprian to be particular, whereby he confuteth the Aquarij, but the Argument and reason which he useth is universal: namely that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist we must not fly from the institution of the Lord. For this cause also we argue, that we as it were by hands do receive the same from him to the intent we may show, that it was not lawful to take away the cup from the Communion. They have also other subtle shifts, and they say, that Cyprian wrote these things only of them that offer, and that therefore the place serveth nothing unto Communion. But it is a wonder that these so witty men perceived not that they in times past and specially in the time of Cyprian, had no oblation that differed from the Communion. There was no place among them for private masses. Those sprung up many years after, to the great hurt of Religion. Moreover if the Epistle be read from the beginning, thou shalt hear Cyprian say, that these men depart from the
institution of Christ as well by consecrating the cup, as by distributing of it unto the people. Wherefore, the cavil is utterly confuted.
6. Now remaineth that we declare that the reasons which they think to make for them, be of none effect. They said that the Church in the first times used both kinds, while it was yet ignorant. I would to God that we were so instructed, as the Christians were taught in the first times.
Afterward (say they) it saw that the lay people may be content with one kind. What I beseech you saw our Popes, that the Apostles and prelates of the primitive Church saw not, who were most plentifully endued with the holy Ghost? What is it else that we see but mere darkness if it shall be compared to the most clear knowledge of them? They add: To the intent that the error of them should be avoided, who perhaps would think that the body of Christ is given a part from the blood, as though the body should sit in heaven at the right hand of the father without blood. These be their monstrous opinions. None of the heretics ever devised this kind of error.
But admit there had been sometime such a heresy: might it not otherwise be amended than by corrupting of the Sacrament of the Eucharist?
Undoubtedly many pernicious opinions may arise as touching the other part of the Eucharist which they have made to remain. And will they because of those things, take away this also?
7. And that which they object as touching the Council of Constance or Basil, we pass not of it. Neither the Greek Church, nor the whole East part obeyed them: and not without a cause. For they decreed against the word of God. And oftentimes Councils do err, as it is evident of the Councils of Ariminum, Chalcedon, Ephesus the second: and of the Council of Africa that was under Cyprian, and many others. Yea and in the time of Christ, did not the Council of the Priests, and the Church of that time, shamefully err,
when it refused the doctrine of Christ, and condemned Christ himself and the Apostles? Elsewhere I have warned, that Councils have not always decreed that which was true: The greater part there had the overhand of the lesser, and oftentimes the worser of the better. Here brag they: Our Church hath the holy Ghost, and therefore it cannot err. They use a fallacy of the Accident: For they that have the holy Ghost, do not all that they do by him.
Even in like manner as a Master builder in that he is a Master builder, in building doth not amiss: but because it happeneth sometime that he is occupied in other cogitations, and perhaps hath drunk overmuch, therefore he otherwhile doth amiss. But the Church (say they) hath a promise of the holy Ghost, and that it shall not be forsaken at any time. I grant: neither is this promise wanting, but is fulfilled: and there be very many always in the Church which do judge rightly. Even as in the Jewish Church in most corrupt seasons, were Simeon, Zacharias, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Mary the virgin, and Joseph, Nathanael, and many others which were partakers of this promise. Wherefore it followeth that truth prevaileth and errors are discovered. Yet is it not gathered by the power of this promise, that they always define well in Councils. Oftentimes they be troubled with affections, and oftentimes they grope in the dark. How should this be known of us?
How shall we understand whether they have decreed well or amiss? All things must be tried by the touchstone of the holy scriptures, there the truth is found out. But let us proceed to confute other their Arguments.
8. They said that the precepts of outward things and of ceremonies are not so firm, as they cannot be changed by any means. Against this maketh
Cyprian in the Epistle now alleged against the Aquarij: where he calleth the precepts of this Sacrament, great precepts. And Christ also saith that he shall be called the least or none at all in the kingdom of heaven, which
breaketh the least of his commandments. Moreover the places out of Deuteronomy the 4th and 12th chapters, and out of the 15th of Numbers the which we alleged before, do plainly show that it was not lawful to change anything in ceremonies: yet do we grant that there is some difference in the precepts of God. For there be some of them from which we be never loosed, as be all those which prohibit. Also that same sum, whereof the whole law and the Prophets depend: To love the Lord God with all the heart, with all the strength, and with all the soul, and our neighbor as ourselves. But there be other precepts which we are not always bound to execute, except it be when time, place, and reason require that they should be done. For the Hebrews were not bound to do their holy things everywhere and at all times, but at certain days, and in the place which the Lord had chosen. And upon the Sabbath day they could not always be void of outward works.
Sometimes it behooved them to fight, as we read in the books of the Maccabees: neither might circumcision be ministered before the 8th day. At this day also he that would desire Baptism, and might not have the liberty thereof, his desire should be imputed instead of the work. Wherefore in these things, when the commandment of the Lord is to be done, it is not lawful to change or invert anything. And although thou be not always bound to do that which is commanded, yet when thou doest it, it is not meet thou should depart from the order which God hath appointed. Nadab and Abihu would alter something about the holy service, and they were consumed with fire. Uzza died for his rashness. And king Ozias when he would burn incense, which was not lawful, was stricken with leprosy. Why are they not moved with the example of their pretty Sacrificers, who take very careful heed in their Mass that they say not Mass without their Orarium, or as they term them without their stole or maniple? And they judge it to be a grievous
offense if they shall omit any sign of the cross or any the least jot of this kind: which nevertheless be the inventions of men, mere toys and trifles.
Why should not we rather beware that we pass not over those things which Christ himself in his word commanded? And among the Ethnics there was very great care had in their sacred ceremonies, least the priest should trip or miss in a word, which if it happened, it was judged to be no light offense.
And have our adversaries thought that Christ's order in the Sacraments may so easily be undone?
9. They said that as touching the old law, we are endued with a greater liberty than were the Hebrews, and therefore we are permitted to change something in ceremonies which for them was not lawful. But these men ought to know that Christian liberty herein consisteth not, that we should change the institutions of Christ: but in that, that Christ hath reduced many ceremonies into few, and instead of laborsome, hath given easy and plain, and in the stead of obscure ceremonies hath set down those which are most evident. Add that we by the power of the spirit, are made willing and voluntary doers, for we are not constrained by the law, but we do willingly those things which religion persuadeth. Wherefore they prove not what they would, but are rather driven to the contrary. For seeing we be so free as we have but a few ceremonies, and those easy and gentle, it would be an intolerable thing, and worthy to be condemned if we should not perform them without corruption.
10. They say, that the ceremony is not for that cause polluted, neither the people defrauded, because so much is had under one kind as under both.
For with the body of Christ his blood is also given, and that under our kind, which they say is done by Concomitancy, for so they speak. But these men should have weighed, that the communion of the body and blood of Christ,
is not in this Sacrament by the work of nature. For whatsoever of these things is delivered unto us, is received by faith and is offered unto us by the words of Christ's promises. And in these outward things, God requireth chiefly an obedience. Signs and the outward actions of ceremonies, be frail things: The word of God endureth forever, therefore the nature of the Sacrament must be judged by it. So much is given unto us, as God appointed to give: of whose will we know nothing further than his sayings disclose unto us. But Christ appointed two parts of the Sacrament: by one of the which he said that his body is communicated, and by the other his blood, and of these he hath left unto us express words: wherefore we must rather give credit unto him than unto the subtle sayings of men. Thou tellest me of I know not what Concomitancy: and doubtless it is thine own subtle point of reasoning: I know that it so fareth with the body of Christ which is in heaven, as it is not without blood. I doubt not but that these things be joined together in him. But how wilt thou prove that they be signified when they be joined together in the Sacrament? On the one part, the faith of the communicants comprehendeth there the body of Christ nailed upon the cross for our salvation, whereof we be spiritually fed. And the same faith on the other part layeth hold of his blood shed for our salvation, and hereof we be spiritually watered and have drunk. About these mysteries of the death of Christ is the mind of the faithful chiefly occupied, while they communicate.
Wherefore we must not regard in what sort the body of Christ is now in heaven. We follow the words of God, and perceive it is not of necessity that those things which in their own nature be joined together should be communicated one with another. The human and divine natures are joined together in the subject of Christ, neither are they plucked one from another.
Yet wilt thou not say that wheresoever the divine nature is, there also is the
human, unless thou wilt extend the body of Christ to an immeasurable greatness, the which is most strange from the nature of man. The son of God, in so much as he is God, is found everywhere, and filleth all places, the which his body doth not. Further in the holy Ghost all graces or gifts are joined together, yet for all that is not the gift of sundry tongues given to him upon whomsoever the power of prophesying is bestowed: or so likewise on the other part. Also severity and mercy, are most nearly joined together in God, and yet nevertheless, when as one is made an inheritor of eternal life, he hath a proof of the mercy and not of the severity of God. And the same might I affirm of many things, which being joined together in themselves, yet are they communicated asunder. But herein standeth the effect of the answer, that this communication is no work of nature, and therefore is not given unto us by the constitution or disposition of the thing which it hath in his own nature, but by the will and pleasure of the giver, of whose will and counsel we cannot decree, further than is expressed by his own words.
11. They said moreover that in Baptism there is much altered: First because Infants have water poured upon them, and are not dipped in, as the Greek word βαπτίζειν signifieth. I know that the Fathers, when it might be, in respect of age and health used dipping: the which was shadowed in the Old Testament when the Israelites passed through the sea: yet is it not of necessity, neither is there a commandment extant for the same. When it is used it hath an excellent signification: because when we are dipped in, we are signified to die with Christ, and when we issue forth, we are declared to have risen with him unto eternal life. Howbeit this signification as we say is not of necessity. But that which concerneth the nature and natural property of Baptism is a cleansing from sins: Wherefore in the Epistle to the Ephesians, Christ is said To have cleansed his Church by the washing away
of water in the word: And we are pronounced to be baptized unto the remission of sins. And this cleansing, whether we be dipped, or whether we be washed all about, or whether we be sprinkled, or after what manner soever we be washed with waters, it is very fitly showed in Baptism.
Neither doth the Greek word βαπτίζειν only signify, to be dipped, but any manner of way to be sprinkled. Moreover the reason is not a like: To change the manner of washing, and to take it all wholly away: Because in them which be sprinkled or have water poured upon them, the element of Baptism, namely water is kept and hath his signification. Neither do we superstitiously contend after what sort we are to drink of the cup, either little or somewhat largely. Neither through little pipes as sometime it was done, and as the Bishop of Rome doth at this day, or with our lips put to the cup, or by bread dipped and made wet in the wine, as it is in the history of Eusebius Caesariensis. As touching these things, so the part of the Sacrament remain whole it sufficeth. Howbeit I judge that must be done which cometh most near to the institution of Christ.
12. And whereas they added, that the words which are used at Baptism were inverted, because we find in the Acts of the Apostles, that some were
Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, there be many which grant unto it.
Because (say they) in the name of Jesus Christ, the names of the three divine persons are comprehended: Of the Father, (I say) of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. And that Irenaeus very plainly testifieth in the 4th book against the Valentinians. Under the name (saith he) of Christ are the three persons understood. Because that word signifieth anointed, wherein is showed both the anointer, and he that is anointed, and also the ointment. He that is anointed is the Son, the anointer is the Father, the anointment is the holy Ghost: whereby appeareth, that in the same alteration nothing was
taken away, whereas these men took away almost the whole half of the Sacrament. Howbeit I stand not to this answer: because our adversaries cavil that even in the Communion of either kind the whole is signified.
Wherefore I say that by that place of the Acts of the Apostles In the name of Jesus Christ, is meant, by the guiding, commandment, will and institution of Christ. Wherefore by these words rather it is known that the Apostles did altogether keep the form prescribed by Christ. Otherwise they would not have baptized in the name of Christ, doing otherwise than he had commanded. Neither are we to think that the Apostles who spread abroad religion with so great godliness and endeavor, rejected the form of Baptizing delivered by Christ. Neither must we pass it over that the Schoolmen (as we read in Thomas,) when they agree that the form of baptizing was in a manner changed by the Apostles, write that this was done for a time by the dispensation of the holy Ghost, to the intent the name of Christ might be made the more famous, and that therefore a perpetual law should not be drawn from thence. The which these men that have taken away the cup of the Communion from the laity, have not observed, seeing they will have their decree to be perpetual, and not for a time. Besides this, the Apostles condemned not for heretics those which baptized after the usual and appointed form. But they have not only condemned for heretics the laymen when they have received both parts of the sacrament, but they also deliver them to the fire. Neither is this doctrine to be suffered, that it is put in men's authority to invert either the matter or the words of the Sacraments as these men have most impudently done: who not only have taken away the cup from the common people, but also the words spoken thereat, the which be very comfortable, and do more largely and significantly express the mysteries of our salvation than do the words which
be uttered, as touching the bread, where it is only said: This is my body, which shall be given for you: But at the cup it is said: This cup is the new
Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. Weigh how many expositors thou hast here of the promise which was set down in the other part.
13. They affirm moreover that we have inverted the order in Baptism, because we baptize infants before we teach them. Whereas Christ delivered them first to be taught, and afterward to be baptized. I marvel that these men descend hither as though they would hold with the Anabaptists, to the intent they may be against us, and do not consider that the saying of Christ is generally to be understood, as touching the Gentiles, and not particularly.
Verily it is true that in the propagation of Christianity they were first to begin with doctrine. For when as a City, a Province, or a kingdom should be won unto Christ, it behooveth to use preaching before we come to Baptism: which when they have believed, those of ripe age not only are baptized themselves, but they also offer their young children to be baptized.
Wherefore that which was so commanded by Christ in general, they will draw unto the particular Baptism of young children. In Greek it is said μαθητεύσαντες, that is, to make disciples and to gather them unto Christ: which in them of ripe years is done both by doctrine and baptism, but in young children by Baptism, seeing they are not yet capable of doctrine. The very which order is seen in Circumcision. As touching Abraham being of perfect age, Doctrine went for most, afterward followed the sacrament: in his son Isaac it came otherwise to pass. And absolutely it is true that in the Church Doctrine doth go before the Sacraments, as every man may perceive. Neither (as we taught before,) do they rightly gather, when as by an order of the words, they will gather an order of the things: For we have it
in Mark as concerning John, That he baptized and preached the baptism of repentance: when as yet there is no doubt but that he preached before he baptized.
14. And as touching the time of the Lord's Supper, we confess that the Church might order the same as it thought good, seeing there is no commandment had thereof. There be commandments as touching this
Sacrament: Take and eat ye, Take and drink ye all of it: Do this in remembrance of me: Let a man examine himself, and other such sayings.
No mention is there of time, of place, of garment, or other such like circumstances. Christ first ate the Passover, because he would institute the new things after the old. Neither is it commanded us either to kill or eat the Passover before the Communion. And the causes why the Eucharist is distributed in the morning, are gathered out of Cyprian. The first is, because it is more easy at that hour to have the holy assembly. For in the day time there happen many affairs whereby men be led away from the service of God. Further at that time, men be well advised, and we have a mind more fit and attentive to receive excellent things. Thirdly he addeth, that the same morning tide is a monument of the resurrection of Christ, which doeth not a little further the institution of this Sacrament. Nevertheless we must note that the ancient fathers in the time of fasting, (because they did not eat meat till night) had the Communion at evening tide: for all the whole fasting day they spent their time in Sermons, Hymns, and other godly exercises.
Towards night the Supper of the Lord was ministered, the Sacrament was received. Afterward they returned home to the refreshing of their bodies.
Albeit in the time of Augustine in many Churches, as he himself reporteth, that upon the Thursday before Easter, to the intent the Act of Christ might be represented the better, the Eucharist was given to the faithful at night and
after Supper. But I find this custom to be abolished by the 6th Synod, which at Constantinople was held in Trullo. Whose Canons are extant in Greek, wherein there is plain mention made of this custom to be among the Churches of Africa. But to return whence we have digressed. So the integrity of Sacraments be retained, as touching the time and other such like circumstances, we should not be very careful seeing of those things there is nothing commanded. Christ when he was baptized was thirty years of age.
Would it not be a great folly at this day, if we would baptize only such as be 30 years old?
15. Of the washing of feet which is now omitted, we say, that therein is a double signification to be considered: One as touching remission of sins, and cleansing the filth of the mind, the which is given unto us by Christ.
Thereof the Lord said unto Peter: If I shall not wash thee, thou shalt have no part with me. And he that is washed hath no need but that his feet be washed. And about this signification St. Bernard dealeth very much.
Furthermore that washing was a sign of charity and submission of the mind, which we ought to use though we be noble and of great honor. Wherefore
Christ said thereof: Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am: but if that I, a Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also must one wash an others feet. By which commandment he meant, that no man for any honors sake of this world should cease from doing his duty unto his neighbor, even as touching those things which seem to be but vile, because
Christ himself would do them. The washing of feet was common and usual among the Jews. For in the hot regions as Jewry is, when men journey by foot, their bodies are very much wearied with heat. Wherefore unto men wearied and full of dust, the washing of feet bringeth no small refreshing: especially seeing in those Regions, men go not so well shod as they do with
us. Otherwise how could Christ have been washed of the woman that was a sinner, and be wiped with her hair, and be anointed when he should sit down at the Table, unless he had his feet either bare or else so as they might easily be uncovered? And that the washing of feet in the Scriptures doeth represent the meanest services towards our neighbors, Abigail testified, who, when David meant to take her for his wife, answered: Thy handmaiden will be ready, who shall wash the feet of my Lord: as if she had said: I do not think myself worthy of so great an honor: I will rather be ready to do the meanest services unto thy servants. And Paul in the first
Epistle unto Timothy, when he speaketh of a widow to be chosen of the Church, requireth such a one as shall abound in good works, and hath washed the feet of the Saints. Where there is no doubt but by the washing of feet, Paul requireth that she have exercised herself in doing of services and commodities to the men of God. And Christ while he saith in the Gospel:
When ye fast, I would not have you to be sad as the Hypocrites, but commandeth the contrary: Thou when thou dost fast, anoint thy head, &c.
By which place it is not to be gathered that in fasting's we should anoint heads, but because in Syria or Arabia surnamed the happy, the use of Ointments was common, when men would show themselves to be merry,
(yea they were in a manner daily anointed, except they had been in some sadness) therefore Christ meant, that when we are in hand with private fasting's, we must not intermit the custom of outward worshipping, as though by fasting's we would win the favor of the people. But we among whom is not that use of ointments are not bound in fasting's to do that which Christ said. The very which thing thou mayest understand about the washing of feet, which our adversaries objected. That cannot be called a Sacrament, (although by the element, it may signify no common thing, and
it hath a commandment joined therewith,) because there be given no particular words, which should come to the element to make it a sacrament, and by which the promise of some singular gift or grace to be obtained is declared unto us. Furthermore, neither Christ nor yet the Apostles decreed, that they which were to Communicate should wash one another's feet. And Augustine in the 119th Epistle unto Januarius writeth, that some Churches removed this Ceremony, least it should be esteemed for a part of the Sacrament, or else for Baptism: the very which notwithstanding some
Churches retained.
16. There was also opposed unto us a decree of the Apostles, wherein they ordained, that the Gentiles which were converted unto Christ, should abstain from blood and from that which is Strangled. Which seeing it is abolished, they say it is lawful sometimes to decline somewhat from the Scriptures. Howbeit we must mark in this place, what is the end and meaning of that decree. It was pronounced, because of the dissension risen in the Church. For they which were converted from Judaism, thought that the Gentiles for obtaining of salvation, should be compelled to retain Moses laws, and should keep the old Ceremonies. But Paul and Barnabas taught otherwise, according to whose mind the Apostles decreed. Yet did they not by their constitution prohibit, but that men converted from the Gentiles unto
Christ, might keep somewhat of the Ceremonies of Moses, so that they should not think those to be necessary unto salvation. Howbeit to the intent they might not be grievous or troublesome unto them which were converted out of Judaism, who lived then very friendly with them, they gave that commandment: and it seemed to help somewhat to the quietness of the believers. So that the Apostles for no other cause did decree that the Gentiles should abstain from these things: seeing they would not, that the
Jews which were converted should be straight way offended, of whom the Church in that first time did chiefly consist. Wherefore they commanded not these things, in that they belonged unto the law, or unto Moses, but according as they perceived them to further the peace and tranquility of the Church, that the faithful might grow up together among themselves in a greater agreement. Whereupon seeing afterward this cause was taken away
(for so much as Jerusalem being destroyed, and the rites of Moses utterly subverted, this difference was not between the Jews and the Gentiles) therefore that decree might be taken away. Howbeit it was kept a long while, even unto the times of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen: and Caesariensis maketh mention thereof, in the history of Attalus and Blandin.
These Ceremonies might after a sort be retained at the beginning, until the preaching of the Gospel did take better root, and that all men might plainly understand that the rites of Moses were abolished. Augustine against Faustus the 2nd book and 13th Chapter, maketh plain mention of this matter, and saith, that until both the walls of the Church and Synagogue were well grown together, so as the difference should no more appear, somewhat ought to be yielded to the infirmity of the Jews. And it seemeth that specially that was to be done in those things, which belonged not to sacrifices, but unto daily food. For the Jews could not straightway be well content with the diet of the Ethnics. Afterward they objected the Apostolical tradition, whereby a man is commanded to prophesy and pray bareheaded, and the woman with her head covered: which precepts they say, are not thoroughly kept. Here we answer, that it is not our part to be inquisitive what is kept, or what is not kept. This commandment we know is extant: and they that keep it not, let themselves see to it. I have not seen any minister praying openly, but that his head hath been uncovered. In the very
which habit, I see them to be at Sermons, especially while they recite the words of the holy Scripture.
17. Our Adversaries also argued that Christ gave the sacrament to his Apostles, the consideration of whom was not alike, seeing they were made priests: therefore they affirmed that this example of Christ was not to be extended unto the people. But certainly as touching the Priesthood of the Apostles we know nothing, neither is there any one syllable extant in the holy Scriptures that the Apostles were Priests. The Scripture useth not these words. But go too: Let them understand, By Priests, the Ministers of the Church: Let them tell us why they give not to their Massing Priests, if they
Mass not when they come to Communicate, but one part of the Sacrament as unto the laity, seeing Christ gave both unto the Apostles, and no less distributed unto them, than he received for himself. Further if Christ (as they will) gave the Eucharist only unto the priests, how dare they be so hardy as to give a part of the Eucharist unto the laity and common sort, seeing Christ (as they say) did not communicate with them? Add that in the supper with Christ were no women present, unless they will, that they were
Priests. Why then do they distribute the Sacrament unto them, seeing Christ gave it only unto men? But they which speak so subtly of the supper which Christ himself had with his Apostles, what answer (I beseech you) will they make unto Paul, who writing to the whole Church of Corinth, and not to the Ministers of the Church only, commandeth that both kinds should be given.
And yet they say, that in the Canons, decrees, and Ecclesiastical histories, there is mention made of the Communion of the laity. I deny not but it is so: howbeit they are far deceived which think that the Communion of the laity doth only signify a participation of one part only, for even then both the kinds was given. But it was called the communion of the laity, because the
Ministers of the Church, being once put from their function by reason of some offense, did no more communicate in the clergy or among the Ministers, but were mingled with the company of the lay men.
18. They said that they have the consent of the Church, wherein they impudently challenge to themselves that which is ours: seeing the Churches of Greece, the whole East part, and the universal antiquity hold with us. For the foul mangling of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is but lately sprung up.
Among the latter men Thomas Aquinas saith, that even now in his time the same began to be practiced in some Churches, which he writeth in the 3rd part, Quaest. 80. Artic. 12. Doubtless the importunity of the Adversaries is wonderful. When we fly unto the Scriptures, they cry out that they be dark, and they appeal to the fathers, whom they say are on their side: they fly unto the antiquity of times, whereby they would shift off all the testimonies of the Scriptures. But how uncertain they be in their opinions, we easily see in this disputation, seeing the Scripture is plain: all the fathers make with us, and the whole antiquity agreeth with the Scriptures. Wherefore the endeavor that they have to be contrary ariseth only hereof, that they be sworn and wholly addicted to the laws of the Pope: in comparison whereof they weigh not a hair neither of the truth of the fathers, nor yet of antiquity.
19. And whereas they alleged, that Christ sometime administered only the one part of the Sacrament, because they read in Luke, that the Disciples knew him by breaking of bread, it is trifling. For how it may appear for a certainty, that the breaking of bread there signifieth the holy communion, they have not been able to show, seeth that word also is often in the holy
Scriptures applied to common meat. And that those Disciples in taking of common meat, could know Christ, it is no marvel: For seeing he had peculiar thanksgivings, and particular prayers as we believe he had, he
might easily be perceived. Further admit it were so, that Christ offered them only one part of the Sacrament, is it therefore lawful for us to do the same?
He did not by that fact abrogate his general commandment, which he gave in the Supper, and that is confirmed by the writings of the Evangelists and of Paul. God once commanded Abraham that he should sacrifice his son, yet did he not thereby pluck away anything from his general precept, Thou shalt not kill. He also commanded the Israelites, that they should carry away the stuff of the Egyptians: and yet nevertheless he would that commandment, Thou shalt not steal, to be inviolate. Lastly where it is named: The breaking of bread, we may by the figure Synecdoche understand the whole Supper, even as it was first declared. And they are to be laughed at when they accuse us to do absurdly, which of one action of Christ, which he had with his Apostles, would gather a general precept: seeing that action of Christ was not ordinary, but it had a precept joined therewith, the which was afterward confirmed by Paul. Moreover we deal as we should, when we have recourse to the head and to the very institution of the Sacrament.
20. Now let us speak of the causes, by which they pretend that the Church was led to make a decree for the mutilation of this Sacrament. The first was, least the cup should be spilled. Here we marvel exceedingly at Irenaeus,
Basil, Ambrose, Nazianzen, and Augustine, being very prudent Fathers, who saw not these dangers in the Eucharist: or if they saw them, as likely it is, thou must acknowledge that they made no such account of them, as they in respect of them violated the Sacraments, the which nevertheless, they administered very often: For of private Masses there was then no use. They evermore communicated in the mysteries with others, and the people ran together to the Sacraments much more often than at this day they do. They
were not so greatly troubled if any part of the holy drink had fallen upon the ground. A young maid in Cyprians time did vomit up the same. Their chief care was that it might be distributed unto them that were worthy: But our men now are not careful to drive away dogs and swine, by which assuredly is done a greater injury unto the blood of Christ, than if the same should be spilled upon the ground, Wherefore we counsel that the godly ministers should take very diligent heed that they shed not the holy cup. But if it shall happen by chance, they may be sorry for it, yet the matter must not be so exaggerated as it were a horrible and detestable crime. Augustine, as it is in the first question in the chapter Interrogo vos, calleth into doubt, whether the body of Christ be more worthy than his word. To some of the ruder sort it might seem to be a blasphemous question, yet is it disputed of by Augustine, and he attributed as much to the word and saying of Christ as he did unto the sacrament: and he plainly saith, that the word of Christ is no less than the body of Christ. Whereupon he concludeth: that as we are careful that a part of the sacrament should not fall upon the ground, even so no less heed must be taken, as well by the ministers of the word, as by the hearers thereof, that nothing be pronounced in vain out of the words of God.
And nevertheless, because it is a perilous thing, that any of the words of God should by negligence slip away from him that pronounceth or from them that be hearers, therefore the godly Sermons are not removed from the people.
21. And as to that, which they speak of corruption which might easily happen, if wine consecrated unto the sick should be kept, we say that no man driveth them into these extremities, unless it be their own superstitions.
Who constraineth them to keep the Sacrament of the Eucharist? Who commanded them this thing? It behooveth say they to give unto the sick. I
grant: but the mysteries should also be celebrated before the sick persons.
They cavil that the sick cannot always stay and abide the long rites of ceremonies. But let them consider that this very thing ariseth of their own superstition, and not from the commandment of Christ. That which Christ commanded may be drawn into four words. Gregory testifieth in his Epistle that the Apostles used only the prayer of the Lord. But our men earnestly affirm that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be wrought only in their
Mass and not otherwise. So as they themselves are the cause of these impediments, and therefore they must not be ascribed to the institution of Christ.
22. As touching the abstainers from wine, and them which in respect of sickness cannot receive wine, we may readily answer three ways. For there be some which say: When there is this necessity, against which no law is of force, let only one part of the Sacrament be given unto men: but thereby is not proved, that as touching others which are able, the Sacrament should be diminished by the decree or doctrine of men: because it is a rash part, of a particular thing, to bring in a general rule. It seemeth to be God which bringeth that man into necessity, neither doth that man willingly pollute the Sacrament of the Lord. It may otherwise be answered, that such drink must be given unto these men as they can away withal, the perfection of the Sacrament and the reciting of the Lord's words being preserved. But if one will say, that Christ did not so institute, they that thus judge, do answer, that Christ used that drink which might be abidden, and which was meet for the receivers, from whose institution they say that they depart not, when they deliver everyone to drink, that which he is able to abide. For this seemeth rather to yield to the infirmity of a brother, than to violate the Sacrament.
But whatsoever may be thought of these answers the which I will not utterly
condemn, to the third I willingly agree, because it seems to me to be sure and perfect enough: to wit, that if a man cannot receive the Sacrament, as it was instituted by Christ, let him abstain, for if he desire it and believe, no commodity or benefit shall in that respect be wanting unto him: even as unto him that desireth Baptism, if he have not the liberty thereunto, it is imputed, as if he had received the same. Neither ought we by reason of these very seldom chances to dismember the sacrament of Christ. Lastly they are bold to affirm that by this means an honor is done to the Ministry.
Unto whom we answer, that herein consisteth not the honor of the Ecclesiastical Ministry, that he which distributeth the sacrament should have a double portion or the greater piece of bread, when as the people only receiveth one kind and useth a less piece of bread. Paul very sufficiently in the first epistle to Timothy, and also unto Titus hath described excellent properties of Ministers, by which they should commend their honor. And again unto Timothy he wrote, that the elders are worthy of double honor when they govern well, and do labor in the word of God. And of this matter
I think there is sufficiently spoken at this time.